Comments on: BOE Punts On Budget Vote

By: Yogibearcares

Yogibearcares — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 21:22:43 +0000

Immediate Relase Is this opportunity knocking? http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/08/0803...

By: Parents

Parents — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 00:02:47 +0000

Maybe if the parents could take some responsibility – get active in the schools, make sure the child attends (fed, appropriately dressed and ready to learn- respecting the teachers), help with the homework and do not expect the school to take total responsibility for the EDUCATION of your child.

If the scores were better, we might not mind paying for the “play time”- activities and sports.

Until the scores get better, cut the “fat” (playtime) and institute a rigorous PE program.
Increase the homework and cut off the TV/videogame time.

We went to school with 30 kid class size. One teacher, no aides. Few admins. Focus was on getting scholarships via academics- GOOD GRADES…..how novel a concept.

By: quick updater

quick updater — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:23:40 +0000

Mr. Burnett was not renominated- so his term expires in November.
Ms. Mosby, Ms. Jimenez and Ms. Mosby are all up for re-election— the Dems re-nominated each of them. Joining them on their city-wide slate is Heidi Keyes (who runs her own home-based preschool).
The Repubs. nominated four parents– none of them have ever held office in CT before. Sue Haynie (is the PTO Council Pres.), Artie Kissimas (pastor at Word Alive Bible Church and dad to 4 kids in the schools), Erin Halsey (lifelong Norwalker) and Steve Colarossi (who has a history of fighting and winning with the Board of Ed). I know Kissimas to be a good and decent guy– and judge the others on his slate by association.
It’ll be an interesting campaign season.

By: Norwalk Spectator

Norwalk Spectator — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 01:47:38 +0000

Thank you, #172, for the link. I didn’t see Saturday’s paper, so I missed that article. Someone referred to “Keyes” in an earlier post, but I didn’t know who that was. I also didn’t realize that Mr. Burnett’s term is expiring. I thought he was re-elected when Mr. Chiaramonte and Mr. Iannaccone came on to the Board. The BOE webpage does not list when the various terms expire. I’d been told FOUR seats were up for grabs, not FIVE. So, I stand corrected, #165 — you were right and I was wrong about the nomination.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 21:11:24 +0000

cmtreports.com

Results have been released.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:35:12 +0000

Norwalk Spectator: Check out this story from The Hour:

http://www.thehour.com/story/472587

It appears Greg Burnett’s term is ending, but he wasn’t nominated.

By: Here's a thought

Here's a thought — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:12:59 +0000

A couple of things to consider– first, the Supt.’s contract was renewed in 2007 when Ms. Bishop Pullan hid it from public view until the 11th hour. Ms. Murray and Ms. Mosby voted in favor of it. They makes it real easy to vote against them (this was at the exact same time that the Cambridge Report was calling into question lots of the Supt’s management style , poor communication and lack of consistent curriculum supervision.
Mr. Burnette did suggest the raise for the Supt. at the last meeting— could be why the Dems didn’t renominate him. Or it could have been that he broke with them over the budget and over the Naramake principal vote. Also, he was the lone outsider (the other dems on the Board of Ed all sit on the DTC), so maybe wanted one of their own.

By: Norwalk Spectator

Norwalk Spectator — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:47:56 +0000

As I said in my post several times, it was simply my thoughts on the matter since I hadn’t seen the contract. However, whether I am right or wrong on his reasons for voting the way he did, he’ll be there following the November elections.

As I am mildly curious, since the raise was not approved and the Superintendent is leaving, why does it matter so much? I’m not arguing or attacking, just curious.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:20:42 +0000

I think you are giving this BOE member entirely too much credit. I am quite certain that there was no salary increase stipulated in the contract. When it was passed by the board after its famous 30-second deliberation, there were details that the NFT found objectionable, and a stipulated increase was not listed among them.

By: Norwalk Spectator

Norwalk Spectator — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 04:38:20 +0000

Actually, if a new group is elected to the Board, the dynamics will definitely change and with an interim Superintendent, the Board member you have concerns about may not be as undesirable as you think.

The 3% salary increase, which MAY have been stipulated in the Superintendent’s contract, but this was denied by the Board. His vote COULD have been a vote for a politic reason since he probably knew it would be defeated. If the raise was included in the contract — and I have no way of knowing if it was or wasn’t since I didn’t see the contract — he may have been voting to uphold the contractual agreement. If a breach of contract suit was filed, then the Board member voting for the salary raise might not be named as a defendant. That’s how I rationalized it, but I have absolutely no proof one way or another as to how accurate it is. That’s just my thoughts on it.